"A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach?" - Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Loyal Followers

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

A gift to the world?

Let’s forget, for the moment, about Raja Petra, Harris Ibrahim, the police and FRU as well as the cows for a while.

It’s the new year. And with a new year, I think we are entitled to at least one new hope. Or one dream. Why not? After all, when hopes and dreams fade and vanish does death begin, I think.

Let’s talk about the environment, for a change.

About global warming. The melting of the ice caps. The greenhouse effects. The complete reliance on fossil fuel by the whole world. The consumption of fossil energy which results in the production of carbon which in turn eats up the ozone layer. Which then makes the world warmer and even hotter. Which then makes all of us turn on our air-conditioners even more. Which means we consume even more energy. The power plants then burn even more fossil fuel to produce energy. Which means they produce more carbons which in turn eats up the ozone making the world even hotter. And the heat melts the ice caps. Making the sea level grow higher. And it goes on and on and on in an endless cycle.

What will be of our children and their children?

What are we doing about this?

Personally, I must admit I have not done much about this issue really. Apart from trying not to use plastic bags when I shop or making sure the lights and air-conditioners are switched off if they are not of any use to anybody. For the future, I plan to buy a hybrid car for the family.

That’s about it!

I did try though to sell an idea to someone within the corridors of power about 2-3 years ago. But the guy yawned after 15 minutes. Okay, perhaps I was not good at selling the idea. Hence the reaction.

To my mind, why do we continue to build mega industrial, commercial and recreational parks? Can’t we, as a nation, do something different? I was thinking of an Environmental Park or a Green Technology Park. Call it whatever you like, but the idea is simple.

We take a huge swath of land – which we seem to have in abundance - somewhere. We turn that area into a park which only use alternative power/energy. Let that park be absolutely and independently sustained by powers generated from the wind, the sunlight, the water and whatever natural means that are within our possession.

Well, actually, we cannot exactly say that we possess those natural means. I mean how can we say that we possess the sunlight or the wind. But we can always claim to have the ability to exploit them if we have the knowledge and technology to harness those natural resources and turn them into power or energy.

So, let’s imagine this huge area of land. We build all the infrastructures which are necessary for all those people and corporations with the knowledge and technology to come here to try to exploit those natural resources to produce energy. We create an environment which is conducive for these people to do research, to experiment and to produce. We invite all of them to come here.

The locals can also join in. We do not lack knowledge. Our people have the expertise and specialist knowledge in all sorts of scientific areas. Our people have even managed to trace the Malay genome, for example (not that I know what genome is!). Bring them back here and let them research. And allow them to flourish in our own country.

So, let’s all of us imagine. This huge area of land is full of people, locals and internationals, doing research on alternative power and energy. Good, efficient and clean power and energy. It is for the good of the country. And the world at large.

And within that particular land area, people live in homes powered by these alternative energy and power. People drive vehicles using those alternative energy. People exchange ideas about these technologies, conduct forums and seminars about them – in halls and buildings powered by alternative energies – and sell them to the world.

I believe that will be a world’s first because really I don’t think any country in the world has ever done that. Even if there are, I don’t think they have done that at such a scale and at such level of governmental supports. We love to create world records, don’t we? We have the 1st astronaut who makes teh tarik in space. We have the tallest twin towers in the world. The biggest ketupat in the world. The longest shortest fattest thinnest roundest squarest whatever in the world. Why not the 1st Green City in the world?

I think we have enough of non-organic steel and brick jungles in Malaysia. We have Putrajaya. Which is nice but which does nothing for the future (except to those people who happened to own lands in that area before they were purchased by Putrajaya Holdings). Then we have the Iskandar Regional Development area in Johor. Soon we will have another 3000 acres of bricks and steel city somewhere in Sungai Buloh. Penang is also trying to have whatever city. Proton has its own city. And God knows what else. There may be compelling economics and socio-political reasons for all these cities. And they may be built for completely altruistic reason(s) too.

However, why not a Green City? Why don’t we do that? There are equally compelling economics and socio-political reasons for it to be built and developed I am sure. I mean, we could spend 250 million bucks on cows. Can’t we spend 250 million bucks or even substantially more for the future of our own children, our country and the world at large?

Let’s continue our hope and dream for the future.

Imagine this. Just imagine this. As far fetched as it may sound, why don’t we just let our mind to go on a journey.

In our journey, we have a technology available at our doorstep which could multiply a unit of diesel or fuel – even jet fuel – just by adding a unit of water to that fuel.

Yes. You read it right. Take a unit of diesel for example. Let’s say a litre of diesel. Add a litre of water to it. Pump that mixture through this gadget. And the result is 2 litres of diesel. Not only that. The two litres of diesel produced by this technology would have higher calorific value than the original diesel. It will also have a staggering 95% less sulphur than the original diesel. In addition, the final product will also have a higher cetane index than the original.

Most importantly, the final product will post 0.03 unit of carbon residue as compared to 0.3 unit from the original.

And all it takes to double the volume of diesel as well as achieve all these added benefits is just one similar unit of water. Just plain old clean water and nothing else.

Impossible isn’t it?

I mean, it is laughable. How can a unit of fuel be doubled up – not to mention with all the added benefits - by the addition of a similar unit of water?

However, we would forever be stuck with conventionality if we do not allow our mind to open and journey to the lands of impossibility. Who would, after all, have thought that today we could connect with a person in Los Angeles as of now with negligible cost? Did we even dream of e-mails, blogs, news portals, facebook, twitter, you-tube, flickr etc and the endless and almost limitless possibilities of the cyber-world 15 years ago?

What if I say as of now – as of writing this article – there is a technology available to do just that? And one of the senior management of the company having this technology is a Malaysian?

What if I say that the results of the lab tests of the final product confirm what I had just stated above? And the tester is none other than SIRIM QAS International Sdn Bhd?

What if I say that on 20th December 2011, a full physical demonstration of this technology had been successfully done in Port Klang? The advertorial in respect of this event can be read here.

I shudder to think that our media – mainstream and or otherwise – have completely failed to report this ground-breaking event. The fact that an advertorial had to be taken to publicise this event speaks volume of the hopeless state of newspapers and news-reporting agencies that we have to live with in Malaysia.

So, let’s us imagine. And in our imaginary journey, we could double up the volume of fuel just by adding water to it. And the final fuel burns better and more efficiently. And produces substantially less carbon too.

What will then happen to this world? What will the future hold? What will happen to the Middle-East; to the fat Arab Sheikhs; to the arm pedlars and war mongers; to the bankrupt politicians who have nothing to offer but only misplaced sense of patriotism and nationalism; to the Protons of the world; to Air-Asia and MAS of the world; to Gardenia bread; to RPK, Harris Ibrahim, Anwar Ibrahim, Putrajaya, Dr Mahathir, Kencana Petroleum, Petronas and all of us, the rest of the fossil fuel hungry maniacs of the world.

Nicely put and thanks for sharing the experience of struggling for hope with a cause. I myself did so, appearing as the nations Open Source guru in The Star Intech some years ago and guess how many MDec or MOSTI officers call me up? Zero.

I now work mostly on overseas projects and travel the world over. I wish i can help my country. I remembered how one ex PM planted the words in a former green spot with "Malaysia's Gift to the world".

Paradoxically i felt as if i am part of that gift. All of us that left.

Your idea of a green city will require more destruction of mother nature and burning of fossil fuel and accummulation of human-created waste. None of the infrastructure and activity that you mentioned can be done without one or more of the hazards you were trying to avoid.

Why not try this different spin to your idea of a green city? Take a large swath of undeveloped land ... trees, undergrowth, animals, waterfall, river and all. Then make and enforce laws to leave this land alone ...

Yr idea of the green city is not new! In fact, that mamak, yes that mamak, has beaten u to that idea ~15yrs ago.

Cyberjaya was born out of the idea as described in yr green city.

But, then as every normal thing in bolihland, that idea was hijacked & converted into a property scam as we know now.

We do have the people & talent. But they r always not been appreciated. Most of the time due to u-know-what.

Case in hand, I was initially involved deeply with the Cyberjaya growth concept. it was the baby of a few ecotechno-geeks. But then as it turned out, not only our skin colour played us out, our political & bodek-skills also disowned us. Thus our baby project was been taken over by the u-know-whos.

Nothing lost nothing gain. Thanks to the foresight of the S Korean Govt, I'm now working on the similar concept on the Yeongi-Kongju city project.

This was supposed to be the new capitol of S Korea then, but now it won't due to the Seoul sectional lobbying. Even though it won't be a capitol city, but the green concepts as stipulated by u would be a major part of the planning. It will be completed by 2030.

BTW, the science in me keeps asking me how does one find a Malay genome. Does nature do provide a protein marker that can be complied with the Fed Constitutional definition of Malay?

As all individual living races on Earth is marked by an unique protein marker. But genetically, there r only 5 groups of humanity ever living on Earth. Even the Neanderthal has died out long ago.

Iff these bunch of 'scientists' can REALLY discover that Malay genome marker, marked my word, the Nobel price in Medicine would be a bird in hand!

Your idea of a green city is laudable and should be pursued. But it is the, “demonstration”, in Port Klang that your highlighted in your post that I find very curious. How is it that one litre of diesel, combined with one litre of water can produced two litres of fuel? I’m no chemist, but does that not violate the first law of thermodynamics, which in short states that energy may be transformed, but never created? (I think that is how it’s stated. I shall be happy to stand corrected by any chemist). I mean, the energy in water can be extracted if we were to break it down into its component parts of hydrogen and oxygen, but the energy required to do so is in excess of that produced. In the advertorial, they say that the energy required to produce a litre of New Diesel is 2 watts. I think that is pretty low, but does the New Diesel store more energy than that? If so, then are we not creating new energy, which the laws of thermodynamics say we cannot do? I’m just curious, that’s all.

In 2018, more than 20 percentof the world’s vehicles will usegreen energies, said Hu Maiyuan,president of the SAIC.http://en.expo2010.cn/pdf/insight/0922.pdf

Bill Dunster – ZEDfactory founder and principal: “Imagine you are the mayor of a Chinese city, considering how to deliver a low carbon regeneration or urban extension, and you have come to find out how to create a better city and a better life. The ZEDpavilion shows how to build super energy efficient family homes or flats over a two storey commercial street frontage that is designed to recreate the lively mix of medium density shops, showrooms and office space that makes the pedestrian prioritised arts quarter of old Shanghai so desirable today. Integrating generous private roof terraces for both home and workspace - with green roofs to attenuate rainwater, maximize biodiversity, and reduce the problematic urban heat island effect - this small city component can be easily scaled up to provide near zero carbon urban districts.”

The 'Gift to the World' Park will be renamed as '1Mesia Park, the cronies of the ruling elites will move in and kick out every scientist, innovators, creators, environmentalists and replace it with their relatives and characters of questionable repute. We have seen it during Madey's and Pak Lah's days and now the 1Mesia PM's ego grandeur with ETP, 1Mesia-everything mega spendrift. So it's still a chicken and egg question, which comes first? Getting rid of hopelessly corrupt gov or going ahead with dire consequences as mentioned above.

We don't really need to go into the technology bit to go green. We don't really need to spend gigantic sums of money to implement a project to promote the environment. Much of today's environmental problems stem from the activities of humanity. It is enough if we can reduce the sea of humanity. If China and India's population can be reduced to 100 million each, imagine the impact that will have on the world's ecology. What happens if the rest of the world follow suit?

Really, Art, we don't need 70 million people by the year 2050. We need only 10 to 15 million. Look at New Zealand - a country about the same size as Malaysia but with a population of only 4 million and so well developed and nice yet preserving much of it southern natural environment.

The world is over populated and it is time a more pro-active approach towards population control is implemented. United Nations must take the lead as the effort should be worldwide. However, in the meantime, Malaysia can be a lead example.

The underlying problem is capitalism, fascism (capitalism plus politics) and economics (including the paradign of growth). For a glimse of what capitalism is doing to the West, seehttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30016.htmFor the muddle in economics, seehttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30097.htm

The consesnus models of climate scientists predict a 10% chance of 1 degree C rise in temperature, 60% chance of 2 degree rise and 10% chance of 6% rise - if we control CO2 at 450 ppm. in the atmosphere. At present, there is no prospect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being controlled significantly. Political leaders, industrialists and others are working hard at business as usual - ever more growth and profit. So, since this is not something where you can stop at the edge of the precipice, we can expect a drastic drop in the human population by several billions in a few decades - in the most horrible ways. This will be evolution and forced learning for the "lords of creation".

No, I am not from the over population school. On the contrary, I am from the positive economics school where overpopulation is defined as declining output per capita as a population expanded further.

Again as an example of my logic, I am going to use analogies.

Frankly, we don't need any scientific calculation to know that 100 persons eat a lot more food and fart a greater volume of gas than 10 persons and if you really want to test this theory, you could certainly throw 2 parties and restrict your guests to dinning in the same room so that the volume of space remains the same while you only change the amount of food and people. You are welcome to stand in there and try to smell the fart of 100 persons vs 10 persons and perhaps come to some statistical conclusion although I wouldn't be interested in them just yet.

I would have thought that my examples of China and India would have been very illuminating in that I reduced both countries population to 100 million each. In global terms, that would mean a reduction of the worlds population by about 2.2 billion to about 4.8 billion as they currently stand. Even then, from your perspective, you would still learn nothing from such a drastic example and would still need to view statistics to prove their enormous effects on mother earth.

I beg to differ. By just looking at those figures, I would know straight away that there is a lot less contribution by humanity in the form of waste gases into the atmosphere. How much of course I don't know. You can start measuring it if you like. Obviously there will be other spinoff effects from population reduction - one of which is reduced farming activities because there are now less mouths to feed worldwide and therefore less pressures on forests and jungles etc. There would definitely be a lot less bull for you.

The point is, I am not here to pass judgement on who is right or wrong so I do not see the need to quote statistics to support China or India against the US, Australia, NZ or whoever. But,there is one inescapable fact - Mother earth is in distress. If we don't pitch in and do our bit, and fight to convince everybody else that we need to bring our global population down to manageable levels like 2 to 3 billion people and maintain at that level, our posterity may not have much of a future. And we need a global effort to stand some chance of success. However, I believe population reduction is one vehicle which could deliver the desired results in the long run since so many countries are already experiencing negative population growth. And China is having a 1-child policy mostly for Han Chinese who constitute some 90% of the population although it would be preferable if the policy is applied accross the board. We just need to get another 50 countries to come on board and join the program for it to be successful.

Just to para-phrase yr idiotic comparison, simply look at the occupied-wall-street movement. What the 1% takes that the other 99% is been denied.

Another example, which is more lethal – 10% of chlorine gas vis-à-vis 50% carbon dioxide within a confined space in one hour.

See the logic?

Yr fart logic is totally skewed on the assumption that that 10/100 persons share equal conditions! So that’s a farce for u.

One more thing, my emphasis is on WASTAGES due to unnecessary WANTS of the developed West. Know what is a NEED & what’s a WANT, as defined in econ101?

This unnecessary wastage can be easily & drastically been corrected within a short timeframe of said 5 yrs, whereas, yr 100M population target for Chin/India cannot be achieved within a reasonably timeframe of said 100 yrs, short of mass genocide through WMD!

Yes, the Earth is in distress. But then which approach has the biggest chance of success within the timeframe while mother Earth can still struggle to sustain?

U do the maths. & please do back up yr claims with solid data rather than hearsays. It’s very unbecoming of characters as been shown in yr write-up. Is this coming from someone, who claimed to be from the positive economics school background?????

Used to work in Big Oil.I've heard that they shushed it up.Wouldn't be good for any of the Big Brothers, right?Sorry, Art, your idea remains an idea unless someone in BN sees it as a way to profit.Even then, they probably screw it up with too much commission off the top.

Hey, thanks for the super discussions on population versus wastage and excessive usage of power/energy. It's a good discussion. But it would even be better without the anger I think. :)

I agree that reducing the world population might just be one of the solution. But it wouldn't help if the population (even if it's smaller) go on living like the Americans are right now, swallowing power like it's going out of fashion. I mean, if we all continue to want to drive a 6 litre car when a 2 litre would do the work quite nicely, lesser population will not solve the issue imho.

I think the solution starts with all of us having a re-look at the issue and ourselves.

We need to ask ourselves, are we going to continue like we are now and what are we going to do about this issue.

Don McLean was already singing about the destruction of the earth in the song "Tapestry" (from the album Tapestry released in 1970). Thought I mentioned it since you might be a fan of Don McLean.

" Every thread of creation is held in position by still other strands of things living. In an earthly tapestry hung from the skyline of smouldering cities so gray and so vulgar, as not to be satisfied with their own negativity but needing to touch all the living as well.

Every breeze that blows kindly is one crystal breath we exhale on the blue diamond heaven. As gentle to touch as the hands of the healer. As soft as farewells whispered over the coffin. We're poisoned by venom with each breath we take, from the brown sulphur chimney and the black highway snake.

Every dawn that breaks golden is held in suspension like the yoke of the egg in albumen. Where the birth and the death of unseen generations are interdependent in vast orchestration and painted in colors of tapestry thread. When the dying are born and the living are dead.

Every pulse of your heartbeat is one liquid moment that flows through the veins of your being. Like a river of life flowing on since creation. Approaching the sea with each new generation. You're now just a stagnant and rancid disgrace that is rapidly drowning the whole human race.

Every fish that swims silent, every bird that flies freely, every doe that steps softly. Every crisp leaf that falls, all the flowers that grow on this colourful tapestry, somehow they know. That if man is allowed to destroy all we need. He will soon have to pay with his life, for his greed ........"

Follow by Email

Share it

About Me

Art Harun believes that he is a failed government experiment, abandoned and left alone to roam the streets after all remedial efforts yielded no positive result. He calls himself a non-governmental organism, practices law for a living and tries very hard to play guitar, sing, race cars and write some stuffs to stay alive.